STAFFING GUIDE FOR ALLIED JOINT 

PUBLICATIONS 

DIRECTORATE FOR OPERATIONAL PLANS AND JOINT FORCE 

DEVELOPMENT (J-7) 

THE JOINT STAFF 

WASHINGTON, DC 

15 August 2002 
2

This Staffing Guide was coordinated with and agreed to by selected members 

of the US Joint Doctrine Development Community via Joint Staff Action 

Package J-7A 00016-02. It provides guidance for the US interface with 

NATO’s Allied joint doctrine development process and related activities. US 

staffing procedures described herein are derived from responsibilities 

assigned in CJCSI 2700.01, International Military Agreements for 

Rationalization, Standardization and Interoperability (RSI) Between the 

United States and Its Allies and Other Friendly Nations, and based to the 

greatest possible extent upon procedures prescribed in Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 5711.01A, Policy on Action 

Processing. The document is modelled overall on US Joint Publication 1-01, 

Joint Doctrine Development System. This Staffing Guide is adopted as an 

interim coordinating measure pending the future incorporation of its 

contents into a new or revised existing CJCSI and/or Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff Manual (CJCSM). 
3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is developing an extensive set of 

Allied joint doctrine. This development is intended to enhance operational 

standardization within the Alliance, thereby leading to greater multinational 

interoperability. Allied joint doctrine is focused on planning, executing, and 

supporting operations by two or more nations involving a force or forces 

composed of significant elements of two or more branches of the military services 

(air, land, maritime, or special operations forces). Within NATO, Allied joint 

doctrine is contained in a hierarchy of Allied Joint Publications (AJPs) and related 

“joint applicable” Allied Publications (APs). An AJP typically goes through five 

phases of development: Initial preparation and drafting; Ratification by NATO 

member nations; Promulgation by NATO; Implementation; and Publication 

Review. Once approved, an AJP constitutes a NATO Standardization Agreement 

(STANAG). When the US participates in NATO operations, NATO STANAGs to 

which it has agreed take precedence over US procedures. It is therefore of crucial 

importance to the US military that the US is fully and effectively represented in 

the AJP development process. This document is intended to function as a guide 

for the coordination and staffing required to ensure this effective US interface 

with Allied joint doctrine development.
4

I. GENERAL 

 1. Overview 

 a. Allied joint doctrine for the purposes of this Staffing Guide, is North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) doctrine focused on planning, executing, and 

supporting operations by two or more nations involving a force or forces 

composed of significant elements of two or more branches of the military Services 

(air, land, maritime, or special operations forces). These forces are normally 

attached to or under the operational control (OPCON) or tactical control (TACON) 

of a single Allied joint force commander, conducting operations within the 

framework of the NATO alliance. These operations are generally referred to as 

“Allied joint operations,” although the broader terms “combined joint operations” 

or “multinational joint operations” may also be used. 

 b. Allied joint doctrine is contained in a hierarchy of Allied joint publications 

(AJPs) and related “joint applicable” Allied publications (APs). The process to 

develop an AJP within NATO, normally (but not solely) orchestrated by the NATO 

Standardization Agency (NSA)1, begins with identification of a need for an area of 

doctrine. This may originate from an agreed NATO Standardization Objective, 

from a nation, a NATO strategic command or a specialized working group (WG) 

within NATO. 

 c. An AJP typically goes through five main developmental phases: Initial 

preparation and drafting; Ratification by nations; Promulgation by NATO; 

Implementation; and Publication Review. Once approved, an AJP is registered in 

a NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) of the type normally referred to as 

“operational” in nature. Operational STANAGs include concepts, doctrine, 

tactics, techniques, logistics, training, organizations, reports, forms, maps and 

charts.2

 2. US Interface 

 a. NATO STANAGs to which the US has agreed take precedence over US 

procedures when the US participates in NATO operations. Therefore, during 

NATO operations, Allied joint doctrine ratified (agreed to) by the US -- with the 

exception of areas or actions that the US may have identified as reservations to 

the doctrine -- takes precedence over US joint doctrine. It is therefore of crucial 

importance to the US military that the US is fully and effectively represented in 

the AJP development process. This Staffing Guide focuses on the role of 

designated elements of the US Joint Doctrine Development Community in that 

process. (Additional information on NATO-internal procedures is available in 

NATO publications referenced herein). 

 

1 Formerly the Military Agency for Standardization (MAS); referred to hereinafter as “NATO NSA” to 

avoid possible confusion with the US National Security Agency. 

2 See NATO Allied Administrative Publication (AAP) –3, Procedures for the Development, 

Preparation, Production and Updating of NATO Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) and Allied 

Publications, March 2001 for a full discussion. 
5

 b. Director, J-7 (DJ-7) will normally serve as the Joint Staff Doctrine Sponsor 

(JSDS) for all Allied joint doctrine projects, and is thereby responsible for 

coordinating the US position on such doctrine and related issues. US lead agents 

(LAs) selected to represent the US on NATO Boards and WGs dealing with Allied 

joint doctrine issues will coordinate closely with J-7 Joint Doctrine, Education 

and Training Division (JDETD) on these issues. J-7 JDETD will conduct staffing 

procedures in accordance with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 

(CJCSI) 5711.01A, Policy on Action Processing, to establish the US position to be 

represented by the US LA. 

 c. Approved US joint doctrine, and Allied joint doctrine ratified by the US and 

promulgated by NATO, provide the initial US national position for Allied joint 

doctrine development. When no approved US joint doctrine or US-ratified Allied 

joint doctrine is applicable or available, DJ-7 will establish the US position in 

consultation with designated members of the US Joint Doctrine Development 

Community. In the latter case, the most pertinent US Service doctrine may be 

considered as a starting point for the US position, but only if a single-Service 

issue is involved.3

 Normally, the US will neither propose nor accept concepts and 

practices for inclusion in Allied joint doctrine that have not been approved in US 

joint doctrine, or ratified by the US in Allied joint doctrine. In event of instances 

where exceptions to established US joint doctrine appear clearly to be 

necessitated as unique to Alliance operations, or other such circumstances apply, 

DJ-7 also will seek input from the US Joint Doctrine Development Community to 

establish a US position. Contentious issues will be resolved in accordance with 

paragraph I. 2. d. below. 

d. Resolution of unresolved contentious issues will take place in accordance with 

CJCSI 5711.01A Policy on Action Processing, paralleling the doctrine-related 

model described in Joint Publication 1-01, Joint Doctrine Development System. 

The DJ-7 will attempt to resolve contentious issues by reconciling differing 

opinions in accordance with existing US joint doctrine and/or Allied joint doctrine 

ratified by the US. If necessary, this may include chairing a US-only joint WG 

meeting(s) to attempt to reach consensus on the US position, followed if 

necessary by a US joint planners’-level meeting. Unresolved issues may be 

referred to a joint council of Service Deputy Operations Deputies (DepOpsDeps) 

for resolution. Failure to resolve issues at that level may result in referral to a 

joint council of Service Operations Deputies (OPSDEPS) for resolution. Finally, 

any remaining unresolved issues may be referred to a joint council of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff. 4

 e. There is currently no comparable formal system for development of 

multinational joint doctrine with other allies or partners outside NATO. In the 

 

3 Conforms to guidance in CJCSI 2700.01, International Military Agreements for Rationalization, 

Standardization, and Interoperability (RSI) between the United States and its Allies and Other 

Friendly Nations, 17 Dec 2001 4 The process is as described for Joint Publications in JP 1-01, pages III-17 – III-19, but is not 

tied specifically to publication “milestones”. Rather, DJ-7 will recommend whether and how far to 

pursue this process based on the merits and criticality of the issues. 
6

event such a system or a similar temporary arrangement or issue arises, the 

procedures described herein remain generally applicable to the US interface with 

that process. 

II. RESPONSIBILITIES 

 1. US Joint Doctrine Development Community 

 The US Joint Doctrine Development Community consists of the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the US Services, the combatant commands, the Joint 

Staff, and the doctrine development agencies of the Services and the joint 

community. Designated members of this Community interface with the Allied 

joint doctrine development process to facilitate its efficiency and effectiveness, 

and to ensure the greatest possible consistency with US joint doctrine. 

Responsibilities of the various members are outlined below. 

 2. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

 Under Title 10, United States Code (USC), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff is responsible for development, review, approval, and maintenance of joint 

doctrine and joint tactics, techniques, and procedures (JTTP). The Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff is assisted in this by the Chiefs of the Services, 

combatant commanders, and the Joint Staff. Only publications approved by or 

for the Chairman will be referred to as joint publications.5 Since NATO STANAGs 

concerning Allied joint doctrine potentially impact upon the development and 

maintenance of US joint doctrine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has a 

Title 10, USC responsibility to manage the US interface with the Allied joint 

doctrine process. Furthermore, this process is an international standardization 

procedure, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is responsible for 

supporting active US participation in international military rationalization, 

standardization, and interoperability initiatives.6 The Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff will approve or establish procedures for US ratification of all Allied 

joint doctrine and JTTP publications, and of modifications to established Allied 

joint doctrine and JTTP. 

 3. Director, J-7 (DJ-7), Joint Staff 

 a. Manage the US interface with Allied joint doctrine and any other 

multinational joint doctrine development. DJ-7 is responsible to the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff for managing the US joint doctrine development process, 

and for operational non-materiel international rationalization, standardization, 

and interoperability agreements dealing with operational plans and joint force 

development issues impacting US joint doctrine. DJ-7 advises the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff on all policy and guidance concerning the joint and 

multinational doctrine development processes and their interrelationships. 

 

5 JP 1-01, Joint Doctrine Development System, p. I-1. 

6 CJCSI 2700.01, International Military Agreements for Rationalization, Standardization, and 

Interoperability (RSI)... 17 Dec 2001 
7

 b. Establish mechanisms to ensure effective US participation in the Allied joint 

doctrine development process, and the orderly processing and complete joint 

coordination of all related projects. This includes establishing internal US 

milestones for new projects and for publication changes and revisions. 

 c. In collaboration (when applicable) with the US LA, conduct joint staffing 

procedures in accordance with CJCSI 5711.01A, Policy on Action Processing, to 

determine the US position on Allied joint doctrine publications and related issues. 

 d. Conduct final coordination (FC) and staffing (in accordance with CJCSI 

5711.01A, Policy on Action Processing) of all ratification actions on Allied joint 

doctrine publications and report results to the NATO Joint Service Board (JSB). 

 e. Represent the US in the Allied Joint Operations Doctrine Working Group 

(AJODWG), and AJODWG subordinate WGs as may be required. 

 f. Normally, act as JSDS for all AJPs. 

 g. When required, assign a US LA for Allied joint doctrine development 

projects, based on recommendations of the AJODWG and subject matter 

expertise. LAs may be selected from among the Joint Staff Directorates, US 

Services or combatant commands. 

 h. When required, assign a NATO author/editor for Allied joint doctrine 

development projects, based upon recommendations of the AJODWG and subject 

matter expertise. NATO author/editors may be selected from among the Joint 

Staff Directorates, US Services or combatant commands. 

 i. Monitor the progress of each Allied joint doctrine project and provide 

assistance to the LA as required to ensure complete coordination and 

establishment of US position(s) on proposed Allied joint doctrine. 

 j. Subject to NATO security requirements, incorporate Allied joint doctrine into 

the Joint Electronic Library (JEL) and other dissemination systems to support 

information flow and research for the Allied joint doctrine development process. 

 k. Investigate ways to enhance awareness of Allied joint doctrine through 

military education and training programs using various forms of media. 

 l. Monitor the implementation and maintenance of AJPs to ensure that they 

serve their intended purpose and to provide a basis for subsequent changes and 

revisions. 

m. Perform other duties as required. 
8

 4. Other Joint Staff Directorates 

 a. If directed, act as US LA for Allied joint doctrine publications. (The US LA 

will not always be selected from the Joint Staff.) When the LA is assigned from 

the Joint Staff, the Joint Staff Directorates normally will be assigned in 

accordance with the following guidance: 

• J-1: All personnel-related AJPs. 

• J-2: All intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, counterintelligence, 

and security-related AJPs. 

• J-3: Operations and special operations-related AJPs, to include civilmilitary affairs. 

• J-4: All logistics-related AJPs. 

• J-5: Planning and policy-related AJPs. 

• J-6: All command, control, communications, and computer related AJPs. 

• J-7: Will not normally be assigned as LA, but serves as JSDS for all AJPs. 

 b. Serve as NATO author/editor if so designated. 

 5. Commander, US Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) 

 a. Assist the DJ-7 in managing the US interface with the Allied joint doctrine 

development process. 

 b. Develop and submit recommendations for improving existing Allied joint 

doctrine or initiating new Allied joint doctrine projects and recommendations for 

improving the joint doctrine development process. 

 c. Assist in reviewing, analyzing, developing, and writing Allied joint doctrine 

drafts and projects and in establishing the US position on proposed Allied joint 

doctrine. 

 d. Review emerging Allied joint doctrine and JTTP to ensure the closest 

possible horizontal and vertical consistency with approved US joint publications 

and with Allied joint doctrine and JTTP ratified by the US. 

 e. Serve as LA and/or NATO author/editor when designated. 

 f. Provide representation to the AJODWG and its subordinate WGs and panels 

as required. 

 g. Conduct other actions as prescribed herein. 
9

 6. Service Headquarters (including, when appropriate, the US Coast 

Guard), and Combatant Commands 

 a. Act as US LA and/or NATO author/editor for specific Allied joint doctrine 

projects as assigned, in accordance with the procedures herein. 

 

 b. Assist in developing all Allied joint doctrine projects as prescribed herein. 

 c. Participate in US and/or multinational conferences to address Allied joint 

doctrine issues. 

 d. Support the assessment of ratified Allied joint publications, especially 

taking advantage of NATO exercises and operations to gather information. 

 e. Appoint a single office or agency as office of primary responsibility (OPR) for 

coordination of all Allied joint doctrine matters. Ideally, this will be the same 

single office or agency appointed for coordination of US joint doctrine matters. 

 

 f. Appoint a coordinating review authority (CRA) for each Allied joint doctrine 

project. (This may be a subordinate activity outside the Service and combatant 

commands.) 

 g. Staff Allied joint doctrine and JTTP to subunified commands and 

component commands as appropriate. Consolidate comments and provide a 

single command position. 

 h. Provide US Service representation to NATO NSA’s Single Service Boards 

(SSBs) (Army, Air, and Naval), and coordinate with J-7 on Joint- and DOD 

agency-related matters arising from the activities of the SSBs. 

 i. Commander in Chief, United States Special Operations Command is tasked 

under section 167 of Title 10 USC to develop special operations doctrine and 

JTTP, and may be selected as LA and/or NATO author/editor for related Allied 

joint doctrine. 

 j. All Allied joint doctrine publication actions will be staffed and coordinated as 

a minimum with US European Command (EUCOM), JFCOM and with each 

Service headquarters and Joint Staff Directorate. Combatant commands other 

than EUCOM and JFCOM will be included as appropriate to the subject matter, 

as will other DOD agencies as appropriate. Normally, each action also will be 

made available to the entire US Joint Doctrine Development Community for 

information. 
10

 7. Service and Combatant Command Doctrine Organizations 

 a. DJ-7 normally coordinates directly with and/or tasks only US combatant 

commands and Services. The latter may perform the function themselves or task 

subordinate doctrine organizations to: 

• Act as OPR for specific Allied joint doctrine development actions as 

delineated by their higher headquarters. 

• Serve as LA and/or NATO editor/author for appropriate projects. 

• Serve as CRA for all or selected Allied joint doctrine projects. 

• Assist in developing Allied joint doctrine projects as prescribed herein. 

• Attend applicable US and NATO development WGs and parties. 

• Participate in conferences to address Allied joint doctrine issues. 

 b. Whenever feasible, DJ-7 will pass information on Allied joint doctrinerelated actions to US combatant commands and Services as well as to their 

subordinate doctrine organizations, utilizing e-mail correspondence and/or the 

Joint Electronic Library, in order to expedite the process. This will normally be 

accomplished electronically using the Joint Doctrine Distribution List on 

classified and/or unclassified e-mail systems. However, this is intended only to 

facilitate parallel planning, and will not be construed as a tasking upon the 

subordinate organization(s) without a directive to this effect from the appropriate 

intervening combatant command or Service authority. 

 8. US Military Representative to the NATO Military Committee 

 a. The US Military Representative to the NATO Military Committee provides 

from the US Delegation to the NATO Military Committee (USDELMC) a US 

representative to the JSB of the NATO NSA. This representative will coordinate 

directly with J-7 JDETD regarding all Allied joint doctrine publications and 

related issues, and represent the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the JSB. 

 b. The JSB representative will coordinate with J-7 to establish the US position 

on all Allied joint doctrine issues, and with J-7 (in collaboration with J-5 and 

other JS Directorates as may be appropriate) regarding all policy issues affecting 

Allied joint doctrine. 

 c. The JSB representative will coordinate with US Service representatives to 

the NATO NSA SSBs regarding Allied joint doctrine-related issues and activities of 

the respective SSBs that may affect Allied joint doctrine. 

 d. The JSB representative will normally serve as the conduit between the 

NATO JSB/NSA and the US DJ-7 for all Allied joint doctrine ratification actions. 
11

 9. Lead Agent 

 a. A LA is assigned to represent the US in various aspects of the Allied joint 

doctrine development process. There are two types of LA in relation to Allied joint 

doctrine: 

• LA/Representative. The LA is assigned to represent the US to NATO as 

part of the Allied joint doctrine development process. The LA designates a 

US Head of Delegation (HOD) and other representative(s) as appropriate to 

attend all WG meetings related to the given project, and to conduct all 

relevant coordination within both the NATO process and the US joint and 

interagency process. The LA will assist the J-7 (JSDS for all Allied joint 

doctrine) in developing the US position. The LA will then represent that 

position to NATO. 

• LA/Custodian. In the event that NATO designates the US as NATO 

custodial nation for an Allied joint doctrine publication, the project will be 

further assigned to a LA to act as NATO custodian. In general, the 

LA/custodian is responsible to NATO to develop, coordinate, and maintain 

an assigned Allied joint doctrine publication, or portion thereof, 

throughout its life cycle, or until properly relieved.7 

 b. When appropriate, both LA functions may be performed by the same 

organization or agency. 

 c. A US Service, combatant command, or Joint Staff directorate may be 

assigned as either type of LA. The assignment of a LA is based on expertise in the 

subject matter of the Allied joint doctrine project. During publication revision, LA 

responsibility may be reassigned with the consent of all organizations involved. 

10. NATO author/editor

 a. When the US is designated as custodial nation for an AJP, the assigned 

LA/custodian will appoint a NATO author/editor. A NATO author is an 

organization and/or individual that develops all or portions of an AJP as specified 

by the LA/custodian. An editor is the individual responsible to the LA/custodian 

for editing, and various administrative actions. (NATO “author/editor” generally 

corresponds to primary review authority (PRA) in the US joint doctrine 

development process. In general, a PRA is the primary researcher and drafter of a 

joint publication project throughout the development phase.) 

 b. LA/custodians and their authors/editors do not represent national 

positions in their work. They are ultimately responsible, in coordination with the 

 

7 Specific NATO procedures are contained in NATO Allied Administrative Publication (AAP) –3, 

Procedures for the Development, Preparation, Production and Updating of NATO Standardization 

Agreements (STANAGs) and Allied Publications, March 2001, and JSBP-01, 1 May 01, A Handbook for the Guidance of Custodians of Allied Joint Publications. 
12

J-7, to the NATO NSA for developing a complete and cogent AJP, or portion of an 

AJP as may be assigned. 

11. Coordinating Review Authority

 a. Each US Service headquarters and designated combatant command assigns 

a CRA for each Allied joint doctrine project. To help ensure continuity, the CRA 

for each project is normally the Services’ and combatant commands’ single point 

of contact for all US joint doctrine matters. 

 b. Each CRA will coordinate with and assist in development of all Allied joint 

doctrine projects. 

 c. CRA comments regarding Allied joint doctrine represent the position of their 

respective Service or combatant command. 

 d. Service and combatant command CRAs will determine publication and 

distribution requirements for their respective commands for Allied joint 

publications. 

12. Technical Review Authority 

 a. A technical review authority (TRA) is an organization that may be tasked to 

provide specialized technical or administrative expertise in developing a US 

position or to assist the LA. 

 b. TRA support from outside the LA chain of command will be approved by the 

Director, J-7. More than one TRA may be assigned, as appropriate. 

13. Joint Staff Doctrine Sponsor (JSDS)

 a. J-7 normally will be assigned as the JSDS for each Allied joint doctrine 

project. The JSDS will assist the LA in the coordination and establishment of US 

positions regarding Allied joint doctrine, and assist in the development of 

assigned Allied joint doctrine projects in cases where the US is designated as the 

custodial nation. 

 b. As part of the development and staffing procedures outlined herein, the 

JSDS normally will receive the project from the LA after the LA produces or 

obtains the NATO first study draft (and subsequent drafts thereafter). The JSDS 

will then coordinate the project with the US Joint Doctrine Development 

Community, and provide the results to the LA. The JSDS and the LA will 

cooperate in consolidating and incorporating the comments to determine the US 

position regarding the project (or to produce a subsequent study draft(s) if the US 

is custodian). The JSDS will identify issues that the LA is unable to resolve 

within the US Joint Doctrine Community, and conduct appropriate coordination 

to assist in resolving them. Subsequent study drafts will be processed in the 

same manner. 
13

 c. The J-7 will act as JSDS for all AJP ratification actions, in accordance with 

the procedures herein and in CJCSI 5711.01A, Policy on Action Processing. 

 d. The JSDS normally will carry out CRA functions for the Joint Staff by 

coordinating the draft document within the Joint Staff in accordance with current 

Joint Staff administrative procedures. The JSDS will also provide the Joint Staff 

comments and recommendations to the LA. 

 e. The JSDS is responsible for determining the Joint Staff distribution 

requirements for developing and ratified Allied joint publications. 

 14. Joint Doctrine Working Party 

 The semi-annual JDWP may be used as a venue for discussing and 

disseminating information related to Allied joint doctrine development and other 

multinational issues as appropriate. 

III. ALLIED JOINT DOCTRINE DEVELOPMENT & US INTERFACE PROCESS 

 1. General 

 NATO Allied joint doctrine development is intended to enhance operational 

standardization, leading to improved multinational interoperability. Allied joint 

doctrine is focused on planning, executing, and supporting operations by two or 

more nations involving a force or forces composed of significant elements of two 

or more branches of the military services (air, land, maritime, or special 

operations forces). 

 2. Allied Joint Doctrine and NATO Standardization 

 a. NATO’s definition of standardization is “The development and implementation 

of concepts, doctrines, procedures and designs to achieve and maintain the 

required levels of compatibility, interchangeability or commonality in the 

operational, procedural, materiel, technical, and administrative fields to attain 

interoperability.”.8 The aim of NATO standardization is to enhance the Alliance's 

operational effectiveness and to improve its efficiency in the use of available 

resources. 

 b. NATO standardization efforts are normally classified in one of three 

categories9:

• Operational. Standards which affect future and/or current military 

practice, procedures or formats. They may apply among other things, to 

such matters as concepts, doctrine, tactics, techniques, logistics, training, 

 

8 AAP-6 (2002), NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions (English & French). 

9 See AAP-3, Procedures for the Development, Preparation, Production and Updating of NATO 

Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) and Allied Publications, March 2001 for a full discussion. 
14

organizations, reports, forms, maps and charts. (Allied joint doctrine falls 

in this category). 

• Materiel. Standards which affect the characteristics of future and/or 

current materiel to include telecommunications, data processing and 

distribution. They may cover production codes of practice as well as 

materiel specifications. Materiel includes complete systems, including 

command, control and communications systems, weapons systems, subsystems, assemblies, components, spare parts and materials consumables 

(including ammunition, fuel, supplies, stores and consumable spares). 

• Administrative. These standards primarily concern terminology - which 

apply to both the operational and the materiel fields - but this category 

also includes standards which facilitate Alliance administration in fields 

without direct military application. 

 c. Agreements among NATO member nations on such standards are termed 

NATO STANAGs, defined as, “The record of an agreement among several or all the 

member nations to adopt like or similar military equipment, ammunition, supplies, 

and stores; and operational, logistic, and administrative procedures. National 

acceptance of a NATO AP issued by the NATO NSA may be recorded as a 

standardization agreement”.10

 d. After an AJP is promulgated by NATO, the US representative to the JSB will 

send a memorandum to the NATO Standardization Agency that documents 

implementation of the AJP. This memorandum will reflect the implementation 

described in the DJ7 memorandum of ratification. This is normally a purely 

administrative task, required by NATO in Allied Administrative Publication (AAP)-

3, Procedures for the Development, Preparation, Production and Updating of NATO 

Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) and Allied Publications. 

3. Record Keeping and Distribution

 a. J7 JDETD will maintain files of records and correspondence that document 

US staffing and ratification of NATO STANAGs associated with AJPs. The US 

representative to the JSB will provide J7 JDETD with a record copy of each 

promulgated AJP and covering STANAG for inclusion in these files. 

 b. When an AJP is promulgated by NATO, J7 JDETD will as a minimum 

electronically distribute the AJP to the appropriate distribution list and/or 

include an electronic version of the AJP in the Joint Electronic Library, subject to 

NATO security and internet releaseability standards. 

 

10 AAP-6, NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions (English & French).
15

4. NATO Standardization Organizations and Agencies 

Figure 1. NATO Standardization Organizations

(Abbreviations key: NAC = North Atlantic Council; MC = Military Committee; SNLC = Senior NATO Logisticians’ Conference; 

NCS = NATO Committee for Standardization; CNAD = Conference Of National Armaments Directors; 

NC3B = NATO Consultation, command and Control Board; NSA = NATO Standardization Agency) 

 a. Standardization is dealt with by multiple organizations in NATO. 

• The North Atlantic Council (NAC), where nations are represented at 

Ambassadorial level, is the highest body in NATO, and is responsible for 

overarching policy. Under the NAC are various committees. (Figure 1 

shows the main ones). 

• The Military Committee (MC), Senior NATO Logisticians’ Conference 

(SNLC), NATO Committee for Standardization (NCS), Conference of 

National Armaments Directors (CNAD) and the NATO Consultation, 

Command and Control Board (NC3B). These committees are Tasking 

Authorities authorized to task subordinate groups to develop 

standardization agreements within their areas of responsibility. These 

areas are operational standardization (including logistics) dealing with 

doctrine and procedures under the MC and SNLC; materiel 

standardization by the CNAD; and communications standardization, 

encompassing both operational and materiel aspects, under the NC3B. 

All three areas are concerned with terminology. These Committees are 

all General/Flag Officer-level bodies. 

• The NATO Standardization Organization (NSO) is charged with 

enhancing interoperability and coordinating standardization. Its 
16

functional elements are the NCS, the NATO NSA, and the NATO 

Standardization Staff Group (NSSG). 

• The NCS is a General/Flag Officer level committee and is not 

permanently in session; the NCS Representatives (NCSREPS) are a 

subordinate group that assists the NCS to coordinate standardization 

throughout the year. 

• The NSSG is an internal NATO staff forum at working group level that 

supports the NCS in coordinating and supporting standardization 

actions. 

• The NATO NSA is the major functional organization under the NCS. 

The NATO NSA supports the NCS and develops operational standards 

on behalf of the MC.11 The NATO NSA is the focal point in NATO for 

the overall coordination of operational standardization. 

• Subordinate to the NATO NSA itself are three SSBs: the Army Board, the 

Naval Board, and the Air Board, as well as the Joint Service Board 

(JSB). Each board is charged with developing Allied doctrine in its 

particular area of expertise. As their names imply, each has either a 

single Service or a joint orientation. However, each board is responsible 

for some Allied joint doctrine development – for example, the Naval 

Board is responsible for AJP 3.1, Allied Joint Maritime Operations and

subordinate publications, due to the maritime orientation of these 

publications, and so on. 

• Each of the US Service Departments12 has a billet(s) assigned to 

NATO specifically to represent US service interests in the respective 

SSBs; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is represented on the 

JSB by the USDELMC, which coordinates directly with J-7 on 

doctrinal matters. 

• Subordinate to each of the four boards are a number of working 

groups composed of experts or specialists. These may be standing 

WGs meeting at specified times, or ad hoc WGs formed to address 

specific issues or projects. It is in these WGs that US LAs for various 

doctrinal projects will perform most of their work with NATO. 

• Under the JSB, the AJODWG is the primary standing WG for 

doctrine. Joint Staff J-7 is the LA and provides the US HOD for the 

AJODWG. 

 

11 Roughly, the MC is the General/Flag officer equivalent within NATO of the US JCS. 

12 The Department of the Navy represents both the US Navy and US Marine Corps. 
17

 b. Not all Allied joint doctrine is developed entirely within the context of the 

MC-NATO NSA-SSB/JSB framework. For example, WGs of the SNLC developed 

most Allied joint logistics doctrine (AJP-4 series), in coordination with NATO NSA. 

5. Allied Joint Doctrine Hierarchy 

 a. Allied joint doctrine is contained in a hierarchy of AJPs and related APs. 

(Figure 2) The hierarchy consists of three levels: 

• Level One contains AJPs which consist of one Capstone publication (AJP01), Allied Joint Doctrine), plus a Keystone publication in each of the main 

subordinate numbered areas of (1-series) Personnel & Administration, (2-

series) Intelligence & Security, (3-series) Operations, (4-series) Logistics, 

(5-series) Planning, (6-series) Command, Control, Communications & 

Computers, (7-series) Training, (8-series) Resources & Finance, and (9-

series) Civil-Military Cooperation.13 

• Level Two contains supporting Allied joint doctrine consisting of 

subordinate AJPs. 

• Level Three contains joint-applicable publications (primarily Allied Tactical 

Publications (ATPs), Allied Intelligence Publications (AIntPs), and Allied 

Logistical Publications (ALPs). These all may be referred to generically as 

APs). Some, but not all, Level Three publications are or may be scheduled 

to become the basis for future Level Two AJPs. Level Three publications 

are typically not staffed jointly by the US unless they are undergoing 

transition to AJP status. 

 b. The Hierarchy Panel of the NATO AJODWG, manages the hierarchy and 

makes recommendations for additions or changes. 

 c. The Harmonization Panel of the AJODWG reviews AJPs to identify 

inconsistencies, gaps and needless duplications, makes recommendations for 

correcting such problems, and examines issues related to management of 

doctrinal content. 14

 

13 Keystone pubs in staff functions 1 (Personnel/Admin), 7 (Training), and 8 (Resources & 

Finance) are “placeholders” pending developmental plans; NATO’s Guide for Operational Planning

(GOP) plus Functional & Regional Planning Guides are used for operational planning until the 

development of Functional Area 5 is assigned for development. 

14 At the time of publication of this Staffing Guide, the AJODWG Hierarchy Panel and the 

Harmonization Panel had recommended that the two be combined into the Hierarchy and 

Harmonization Panel (H2), pending approval of the AJODWG in Fall 2002. 
18

Figure 2. Allied Joint Doctrine Hierarchy 
19

6. Allied Joint Doctrine Development Process 

 a. The process to develop an AJP, normally (but not solely) orchestrated by the 

NATO NSA, begins with the identification of a need for an area of doctrine. This 

may originate from an agreement within NATO to seek standardization in some 

area, or from the recommendation of a nation, a strategic command or a 

specialized WG. 

 b. An AJP typically goes through five developmental phases: Initial preparation 

and drafting; Ratification; Promulgation; Implementation; and Publication Review. 

Once approved, an AJP constitutes a NATO STANAG, of the type normally 

referred to as “operational” in nature. Operational STANAGs apply among other 

things to concepts, doctrine, tactics, techniques, logistics, training, organizations, 

reports, forms, maps and charts. 15 An AJP is normally assigned a unique 

STANAG number in conjunction with the ratification process. 

 c. Initial Preparation and Drafting involves the development and 

coordination of the first and subsequent study drafts by the NATO custodian. 

This will be done within the context of a specified WG. The US LA for this process 

will obtain the proposed study draft and provide it to J-7 JDETD, along with any 

appropriate comment or analysis. J-7 JDETD will then staff the study draft in 

accordance with CJCSI 5711.01A, Policy on Action Processing, to determine the 

joint US military position on the proposed publication. 

 d. Ratification is the process by which a member nation formally accepts, 

with or without reservation, the content of a STANAG, in this case an AJP. A 

reservation is a stated qualification by a nation that describes a part of a STANAG 

that it will not implement or will implement only with limitations.16 (Any national 

reservations are incorporated into a special section at the beginning of the 

promulgated AJP). The US will typically respond with one of three answers when 

asked to ratify -- Ratify; Ratify with Reservation(s); or Do not ratify. (The categories 

“Ratifying but not Implementing” and “Not Participating” are also available, but will 

not under normal circumstances be used by the US)17. During the ratification 

process, the US representative to the JSB (or to one of the SSBs if appropriate) 

forwards the ratification draft of the AJP along with a cover letter from NATO NSA to 

J-7 JDETD, asking the US to review and ratify the AJP. J-7 JDETD will then staff 

the ratification draft in accordance with (IAW) CJCSI 5711.01A, Policy on Action 

Processing, to determine the joint US military position on ratification. Upon 

determination of the US position, DJ-7 will send a memorandum to NATO NSA 

informing them of the US decision. 

 e. Promulgation occurs when sufficient nations have ratified the STANAG and it 

is ready for publication. The AJP is then published (promulgated). 

 

15 See AAP-3, Procedures for the Development, Preparation, Production and Updating of NATO 

Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) and Allied Publications, March 2001 for a full discussion. 

16 This may be due to national legal constraints, capabilities (or lack of same), or irreconcilable 

differences between some tenet of national doctrine and Allied joint doctrine, for example. 

17 US policy directs participation in this process and the implementation of ratified STANAGs. 
20

 f. Implementation occurs as NATO forces and member nations make whatever 

adaptations are necessary to accommodate the newly approved doctrine. 

 g. Publication Review takes place periodically to ensure the currency and 

continuing relevance of the doctrine. As publication reviews arise, the US LA to the 

appropriate WG will provide proposed changes to ratified publications to the J-7 

JDETD for staffing IAW CJCSI 5711.01A, Policy on Action Processing, to determine 

the joint US position. 

 7. Special Note on Ratification 

 a. Level One (Capstone/Keystone Publications). Ratification by all NATO 

members is required to promulgate this doctrine. (Figure 3) NATO MC 

Memorandum MCM-077-00 (17 May 2000) directs that ratification of all Level 

One AJPs be confirmed at MC level “by consensus.” This was interpreted by some 

NATO nations as meaning that nations could no longer submit reservations to 

Level One AJPs (on the theory that “consensus” would not then exist). The US 

opposed this position.18 The following compromise19 was eventually reached: 

• Cap/Key-stone AJPs are to be agreed on a consensual basis and are to be 

promulgated having been ratified by all Alliance nations, without 

reservation. Therefore, Cap/Key-stone AJPs require that Nations only 

respond with either ‘Ratification’, or with ‘Not Ratifying’. In the case of ‘Not 

Ratifying’ amplifying remarks are required to explain the reasons and, if 

possible, changes that would allow the nation to Ratify. WGs responsible 

for Cap/Key-stone AJPs are to strive to resolve all areas of contention prior 

to the issue of the Ratification Draft. If, during ratification, a Nation cannot 

accept the document in its entirety, it is to submit a ‘Not Ratifying’ reply, 

together with details of its objections. On receipt of this response, the NATO 

NSA secretariat, on behalf of the Board, is to immediately task the 

responsible WG with reviewing the AJP with the aim of resolving the issue 

causing the non-Ratification. Remedial action may be achieved by 

correspondence or by calling an ad hoc meeting if required. If resolution 

proves impossible at WG level, within an acceptable period, the issue is to 

be raised to the JSB for its consideration. If the Board is unable to find a 

solution, it is to refer the matter to the MC1. 

1 Note: The following is the likely JSB staffing procedure when referral of an AJP to 

the MC becomes necessary: The MC would be invited to decide whether or not the 

reason for non-ratification of the AJP is acceptable in accordance with MCM-077-00. 

If not, it would either have to be resolved at MC level, or returned to the JSB with 

further guidance. If deemed acceptable, then the MC would return the document to 

the JS Branch so that the JSB secretariat could take the necessary staff action to 

have the document ratified with the MC agreed reservation included. The DIRECTOR 

NSA would then promulgate the document. 

 

18 Joint Staff Action Package 00491-00, 10 Nov 2000. 

19 NATO NSA memo NSA(JSB) 1528-85/1, JSA Guidance on the Ratification of Cap/Keystone 

AJPs, 11 Dec 2001. The footnote is part of the memo. 
21

Figure 3. Development & Ratification of a-Keystone/Capstone Level 1 AJP 

b. Level Two (supporting Allied joint doctrine). Ratification by a majority of 

NATO nations is required for promulgation. (Figure 4) The NATO NSA may 

approve promulgation without referral to the MC, and there is no special 

consideration of reservations. 

Figure 4. Development & Ratification of a Level 2 AJP 
22

c. Level Three (joint-applicable doctrine). These publications are normally 

developed within the SSBs and/or other agencies such as the SNLC. In the US, 

they are typically staffed within single-Service channels. Those Level Three 

publications that undergo revision to become AJPs are staffed jointly when a 

joint-oriented first study draft is developed for coordination. 

IV. ALLIED JOINT DOCTRINE AND US JOINT STAFFING PROCEDURES 

 1. Request for Comments on AJP Study Drafts 

 a. The most typical joint action involving an AJP is a “request for 

comments”, which has several variants as explained below. A Joint Staff Action 

Package (JSAP) is normally prepared and distributed in accordance with CJCSI 

5711.01A, Policy on Action Processing, to effect staffing of these actions. (See 

Appendix, pages 3-4). In addition to the routine distribution process, J7 JDETD 

will normally provide backup e-mail distribution of AJP-related JSAP actions via 

the Joint Doctrine Distribution List (Appendix, page 13). To expedite completion 

of the action, responses to such JSAP actions should be returned to J7 JDETD 

via e-mail as well as through routine channels. 

 b. Request for US Comments

• When a NATO custodian prepares an AJP study draft for coordination with 

NATO nations, the custodian will typically send it to the HOD for each 

nation on the given NATO WG developing the publication. (Electronic 

transmission should be highly encouraged). The US HOD/LA will transmit 

the study draft in turn to J7 JDETD, which as the Joint Doctrine Sponsor, 

will staff the study draft with the US Joint Doctrine Development 

Community for comments on the AJP in order to develop the US position. 

• J7 JDETD will prepare a JSAP action consisting as a minimum of a JS 136 

Transmittal Form, a JS 136 Action Processing Form, a copy of the latest 

AJP study draft, and a blank NATO comments matrix. 

• The JS 136 Transmittal Form lists JSAP addressees. The JSAP will be 

addressed to and coordinated with as a minimum, EUCOM, JFCOM, each 

Service headquarters and each Joint Staff Directorate. Combatant 

commands other than EUCOM and JFCOM will be included as appropriate 

to the material, as will other DOD agencies. 

• Normally, each JSAP is also made available to the US Joint Doctrine 

Development Community for information via e-mail on J7 JDETD’s Joint 

Doctrine Distribution List, by both unclassified and classified means. The 

e-mail will contain the JSAP documents and the notice: “If your agency or 

higher headquarters is not addressed on the JS 136 Transmittal Memo 

attached, you are receiving this for information only and may reply if 

desired.” 
23

• The standardized NATO comments matrix (Appendix, page 2) will be 

provided with the JSAP and will be used to respond to the JSAP. 

Comments provided in any other format will normally be rejected. In 

accordance with the NATO matrix, comments will be characterized as 

“Critical, Substantive, or Editorial”20. Whenever possible, replies will be 

made via e-mail. 

• When all comments have been received, J7 JDETD will compile a 

consolidated list of US comments. Individual US agencies providing 

comments will continue to be identified on this list. 

• JDETD will analyze each comment based on US joint doctrine and USratified Allied joint doctrine, and decide to accept, reject, or modify each. 

In the event a critical comment is rejected or modified, JDETD will 

normally contact the comment’s author directly to coordinate the change. 

• Time permitting, JDETD may convene a US joint WG to review and assist 

in finalization of US comments. Contentious issues will be resolved in 

accordance with guidance in paragraph I. 2. d of this document. 

• A JSAP request for comments on an AJP study draft will normally be 

addressed to action officers (AOs) for preliminary coordination (PC). This 

leaves it to the discretion of the AO (or a particular agency’s internal 

procedures) to determine whether a planner’s21 approval is required. 

However, J7 JDETD may address a JSAP to planners for PC if the issues 

involved so require. 

c. Guidelines for Comments on NATO AJPs. Comments should be based on 

clear, concise, objective reasoning. A reasonable change or alternative to the 

original wording should be offered. The following criteria will be applied when 

categorizing US comments on AJPs:

• CRITICAL – would cause US to not ratify the AJP or to register a reservation. 

Following criteria apply: 

• US joint doctrine is at variance with all or part of the proposed Allied joint 

doctrine to the extent that the US is unable or unwilling to implement the 

latter, or can do so only in a modified fashion. 

• US law and/or the Law of Armed Conflict is potentially violated by 

implementation of all or part of the proposed Allied joint doctrine. 

• The proposed Allied joint doctrine contains flaws that in the judgment of the 

US Joint Doctrine Development Community might contribute to confusion, 

 

20 See Following section for additional explanation of comment categories. 

21 Normally defined for Joint Staff coordination purposes as a designated O-6 for US Services, as a 

Joint Staff division chief, and as a Joint Staff division chief equivalent for other agencies. 
24

potential fratricide, and/or less-than-optimal command, control, and 

effective employment of joint assets. 

• The proposed Allied joint doctrine contains an operationally significant 

void(s), which must be addressed. 

• US joint doctrine contains an unresolved void(s) that renders the US 

position unclear or disputed within the US Joint Doctrine Development 

Community. 

• The proposed Allied joint doctrine contains inconsistencies or omissions 

when compared to “higher-level” Allied joint doctrine or policy to the extent 

that a comment is required for clarification and/or accuracy. 

• SUBSTANTIVE – would significantly improve the utility and/or accuracy of the 

publication. Following criteria apply: 

• The proposed Allied joint doctrine contains factual inaccuracies, voids 

and/or inconsistencies with “higher level” doctrine that should be addressed 

for clarity and/or accuracy. 

• Approved US joint doctrine contains a potentially “better solution” that 

should be offered as a model for the proposed Allied joint doctrine. 

• The proposed Allied publication contains flaws in approach, organization, or 

philosophy, which, if modified, would significantly improve the utility and/or 

accuracy of the publication. 

• EDITORIAL – a correction to spelling, grammar, punctuation, organization, 

etc. Self-explanatory. 

 d. Finalizing US Comments 

• This action normally is a follow-up to the request for comments action. 

Once a consolidated list of US comments is compiled, that list is normally 

circulated among concerned members of the US Joint Doctrine 

Development Community so that each agency may see the comments 

submitted and any modifications made by JDETD, and provide comments 

in reply if desired. 

• This action may constitute a separate JSAP action (Appendix pages 5-6), 

particularly when contentious issues are involved. However, JDETD 

normally will accomplish the action by e-mail follow-up correspondence to 

the original JSAP action, utilizing the Joint Doctrine Distribution List on 

both classified and unclassified e-mail networks. 
25

• Each agency may provide comments on the US consolidated comments 

list. J7 JDETD will consider these comments and attempt to resolve 

differences of opinion, in order to produce a finalized list of US comments. 

• JDETD may convene a US Joint Doctrine WG to review and assist in 

finalization of US comments. Unresolved contentious issues will be 

addressed in accordance with guidance in paragraph I. 2. d. of this 

document. 

• The finalized US consolidated comments list will constitute the US position 

on the AJP study draft. The US LA will forward US comments to the NATO 

custodian, present the US position in the appropriate fora, and use the US 

position as the basis of all discussions regarding the AJP study draft. 

e. Request for Comments on Allied Comments 

• In staffing an AJP study draft for comments, the NATO custodian will 

normally provide national HODs with a consolidated list of comments from 

all nations. 

• To assist in discussion of these Allied comments in subsequent NATO 

WGs, etc, the LA will provide J7 JDETD with these comments. JDETD will 

then staff a JSAP action (Appendix pages 7-8) offering the US Joint 

Doctrine Development Community an opportunity to review and provide 

comments on the Allied comments. The JSAP action normally will be 

addressed to AOs for PC.

• In the event that US and Allied comments are available simultaneously, 

the two lists may be combined into a single action, but emphasis will 

normally be placed on reviewing and coordinating the US comments. 

 2. Request for Ratification 

 a. A NATO request for ratification will normally be delivered to the US 

representative to the NATO JSB, who will in turn transmit the request for 

ratification along with the ratification draft of the AJP to J7 JDETD. 

 b. J7 JDETD will staff a JSAP action (Appendix pages 9-10) addressed to 

planners for FC, consisting as a minimum of a JS 136 Transmittal Form, a JS 

136 Action Processing Form, and a copy of the AJP ratification draft. The action 

will request addressees to review the ratification draft and recommend one of 

three courses of action: (1) Ratify; (2) Ratify with Reservation(s); or (3) Not Ratify. 

 c. An agency recommending “Ratify with Reservation(s)” will provide J7 JDETD 

with the wording of the proposed reservation. A reservation should contain the 

following information as a minimum: (1) The chapter of the AJP to which the 

reservation applies; (2) A succinct statement of what it is the US disagrees with; 

and (3) A brief rationale. Ideally, an individual statement of reservation will be no 
26

more than 5-10 lines long when published in the AJP. Reservations submitted to 

NATO appear in the front of the promulgated AJP. (See Appendix page 11-12 for 

example of a Ratification Memorandum with reservations). The criteria for a US 

reservation are the same as for “Critical” comments (IV, 1.c. above). 

 d. As noted in paragraph III. 6. a. above, the procedure is modified for 

Keystone/Capstone AJPs so that responses are limited to “Ratify” and “Not 

Ratify”, with the latter accompanied by amplifying remarks explaining the reasons 

and, if possible, changes that would allow the US to ratify. 

 e. JDETD will circulate any proposed reservations within the US Joint Doctrine 

Development Community (normally by e-mail as a follow-up to the original JSAP 

action) in order to ensure that there are no objections or disagreements. JDETD 

may convene a US Joint WG to review and assist in finalization of US comments. 

Contentious issues will be resolved in accordance with guidance in paragraph 

I.2.d. of this document. 

 f. To complete the ratification action, DJ-7 will send a memorandum through 

the US representative to the JSB to the secretary of the JSB. This 

memorandum22 (Appendix pages 11-12) will contain the following information: 

• Identification of the AJP and accompanying STANAG number; 

• Whether or not the US ratifies; 

• The ratification reference number (this is the JSAP action number); 

• The proposed date the US will implement (put into effect) the agreement 

(normally listed as “Date of Promulgation (DOP)” rather than a specific 

date, as the US is unlikely to implement in absence of promulgation); 

• Any reservations; 

• A comments section (appropriate for comments which the US feels it 

important to air, but not requiring a reservation, for example, notation of 

some significant editorial error or omission; and 

• DJ-7 signature block. 

 3. Other Doctrine-related Actions 

 a. For other types of approval actions (such as NATO policy documents), NATO 

routinely uses the “silence” procedure, whereby a proposal is put forth to member 

nations, giving them a certain length of time to “break silence” if they disagree. If 

 

22 This memorandum is based on the instructions and model provided in NATO AAP-3, Procedures 

for the Development, Preparation, Production and Updating of NATO Standardization Agreements 

(STANAGs) and Allied Publication, March 2001.
27

no nation breaks silence, then the proposal is considered approved. (This 

procedure is never used for ratification, which requires active vice passive 

responses from the nations.) 

 b. When such an action is related to or affects Allied joint doctrine 

development, it will be referred to J7 JDETD for appropriate staffing action to 

establish the US position. 
APPENDIX 
ii

Note: This appendix contains a number of historical examples of actual 

approved and completed Joint Staff action packages related to Allied joint 

doctrine development and ratification. A number of these historical 

examples use the term “Commander-in-Chief” or its abbreviation “CINC” 

when referring to a US combatant commander. “Commander-in-Chief” or its 

abbreviation “CINC” is no longer accepted usage. In any future such 

actions, the term “combatant commander” will be used. 
iii

A. Sample NATO Comments Matrix Form 
iv

B. Sample Joint Staff Action Packages (JS 136) and Documents 

 1. Request for US Comments 

 a. JSAP Transmittal Memorandum 
v

 b. JS 136 
vi

 2. Request for Review of US Comment 

 a. JSAP Transmittal Memorandum 
vii

 b. JS Form 136 Action Processing Form 
viii

 3. Request for Comments on Allied Comments 

 a. JSAP Transmittal Memorandum 
ix

 b. JS Form 136 Action Processing Form 
x

 4. Request for Ratification 

 a. JSAP Transmittal Memorandum 
xi

 b. JS Form 136 Action Processing Form 
xii

5. Ratification Memorandum 

THE JOINT STAFF

WASHINGTON, DC

 SAMPLE 

Reply ZIP Code: dd/mmm/yy 

20318-7000 

MEMORANDUM FOR Joint Service Board Secretary, NATO Standardization 

Agency (NSA) 

Subject: STANAG 2230 LOG (Edition 1)(Ratification Draft 1) – Multinational 

Joint Logistics Centre Doctrine (MJLC) - AJP-4.6 

Ref: Memo - MAS/USAF-102/00, 7 September 00, Subject: STANAG 2230 LOG 

(Edition 1)(Ratification Draft 1) – Multinational Joint Logistics Centre Doctrine 

(MJLC) - AJP-4.6 

Encl: None 

1. The following information is submitted concerning the subject STANAG. 

 a. RATIFICATION INFORMATION: 

Ratifying Ratifying 

W/reservations 

Ratifying, but 

Not implementing 

Not ratifying 

 X 

Ratification Reference: J-7A 00466-00 

 b. PRELIMINARY INFORMATION ON IMPLEMENTATION: 

Intended date of Implementation 

Navy/ 

Mer 

Army/ 

Terre 

Air 

DOP DOP DOP 

2. RESERVATIONS: 

Chapter 2: 

 (a). The US does not agree with text which suggests that organizations other 

than the AE Cell and the AECC manage and execute AE mission operations and 

act as operations center for overall planning, coordination, and direction of all 

theatre Air Force AE assets, as well as coordinating with Airlift Control Team for 

airlift. The AE Cell/AECC should fulfill these roles. This reservation is based on 

the reengineering of USAF AE since the drafting of this publication, and intended 

as a clarification of US national AE doctrine, which will be followed by the US in 
xiii

this case. It is also consistent with national reservations submitted to AJP 4-10 

“Allied Joint Medical Support Doctrine.” 

 (b). The US does not agree with text that describes the composition of the JTCC 

and the MEDCC without indicating the need for assignment of an experienced AE 

individual on the team, preferably from the national contingent supplying the 

bulk of AE assets. Without ensuring this, the execution of AE could be severely 

compromised by the lack of proper AE representation and expertise in these 

agencies. 

3. COMMENTS: None. 

MARK P. HERTLING 

Brigadier General, USA 

Director, Operational Plans 

 and Joint Force Development 
xiv

C. Sample e-mail message with JSAP package attached 

CLASSIFICATION:NATO UNCLASSIFIED

Doctrine Tasker: Ratification of AJP 2.0, Allied Joint Intelligence, Counterintelligence & 

Security Doctrine. 

Review and recommend RATIFY, RATIFY WITH RESERVATIONS or NOT RATIFY. 

If your agency is not listed as an addressee on the attached Transmittal Form and/or JS 

Form 136, you are receiving this for info, and may respond if desired. 

Reply NLT 13 Feb 2002 to: Mr. Simmeth, J7 POC, Pentagon Room 1E1019, 703-

692-7264 (DSN 222), Fax 692-5224 e-mail harry.simmeth@js.pentagon.mil or 

SIPRNET harry.simmeth@js.pentagon.smil.mil. 

<<File Attachment, Transmittal Memo>> <<File Attachment, JS 136>> 

<<File Attachment, Comments Matrix>> <<File Attachment, AJP Ratification Draft>>